Raveendran, C.J. -- 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer on ad hoc basis by the Department of Collegiate Education on 8.11.1983 for a period of six months on a fixed salary of Rs. 700/- which is equivalent to initial pay in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600. Thereafter, periodically she was given ad hoc appointments for terms of six months each in the years 1984 and 1985 also, on the fixed salary of Rs. 700/-. The petitioner's services were regularised by order dated 10.3.1987. under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments Rules. 1986, ("Rules" for short) and the petitioner was extended the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 700-40-11 00-50-1300-EB-50-1600.

2. Fourteen years later the petitioner approached the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Jabalpur Bench in OA No. 2706/2001 seeking grant of increments for the ad-hoc period of service i.e. from 8.11.1983 to 10.3.1987. the Tribunal rejected the claim by order dated 17.1.2002 following its earlier order dated 12.7.2001 in OA No. 1880/2001, Smt. Fahmida Bano v. State of M.P. and the order of the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1355/2000. Dr. Smt. Nasreen Rehman Sheikh v. State of M.P. both on merits and on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal refused to follow its decision in TA No. 1547/ 1988. Dr. P.L. Malik v. State of M.P. decided on 30.7.1990 relied upon by the petitioner, on the ground that the said order was rendered by a Bench which was not duly constituted. The order dated 17.1.2002 of the Tribunal is under challenge in this petition.

3. The petitioner contends that having regard to F R 26 of the M.P. Fundamental Rules, the period during which a person performed duties in a post on a time-scale should count for increments in that time-scale. The petitioner contends that as the order of ad hoc appointment referred to the scale of Rs. 700-1600, it should be deemed that her appointment was on a time-scale and consequently increments should be granted even for the period of ad hoc appointment.

4. The petitioner accepted her regularisation under the M.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment Rules, 1986 (for short 'the Regularisation Rules') with effect from that date with her initial pay at Rs. 700/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 without protest. She did not demand that her pay should be fixed at any higher stage in the pay-scale, by counting the period of ad hoc service for grant of increments. She never claimed the benefit of increments for the ad hoc employment period (1983-87). Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim for the first time in an application filed on 10.9.2001. increments for the period between 1983 to 1987. The application was liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC 669] contended that where the grievance is in regard to fixation of initial pay the assertion being one relating to a continuing wrong the question of limitation will not arise. It is contended that the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the decision in M.R. Gupta (supra).

6. This Court had occasion to coqsider the circumstances in which the principles stated in M.R. Gupta (supra) will apply in P.S. Rai v. Union of India. WP (S) No. 596/2003 [2006 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 4]. This Court held:

"The Principles in M.R. Gupta will apply where the re-fixation is sought on the ground of an error in calculation (incorrect computation), or where the entitlement for re-fixation is not disputed. It will also apply to a case where there is no dispute about the applicability of a particular pay scale. but the pay had been wrongly fixed in a different pay scale; or to a case where there was a wrong fixation in the same pay scale contrary to the Rules; or to a case where the fixation of pay was erroneously done by not calculating the initial pay in the pay scale as contemplated under Fundamental Rule 22